6.  The applicant was placed in preliminary detention on 3 July 1998 under an order of an investigator on the suspicion of having raped a minor on the previous day, 2 July 1998. The arrest was undertaken on the basis of a complaint filed by the victim whereby she had identified the applicant as one of the persons who had raped her. On the same day, the preliminary detention of the applicant was extended until 6 July 1998 by order of a prosecutor.
7.  Based on the complaint filed by the victim and the evidence collected by the police, a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicant on 6 July 1998. On the same day, he was charged with aggravated rape of a defenceless minor perpetrated on two occasions on 2 July 1998 together with another two individuals. By virtue of the same order, confirmed by the Prosecutor's Office later in the day, the applicant was detained on remand. He was presented with the aforesaid order and countersigned it on the same day.
8.  On 13 and 15 July 1998 the applicant filed appeals against his detention, which were examined and dismissed by the Pazardzhik Regional Court by decision of 20 July 1998. The court found that because the applicant was charged with a serious intentional offence there was a risk that he might abscond.
9.  The charges against the applicant were amended on 14 May and 24 June 1999. On both occasions the detention on remand was maintained on the grounds of the applicant's personality and the seriousness of the offence.
10.  On 28 June 1999 the preliminary investigation was concluded with a proposal that an indictment be filed against the accused.
11.  The Pazardzhik Regional Prosecutor's Office amended the charges against the applicant on 29 June 1999.
12.  The Pazardzhik Regional Prosecutor's Office entered an indictment against the applicant on 7 July 1999 charging him with being an accomplice to the rape of a minor using threats or force (Article 152 § 3 (1), in conjunction with § 2 (1) and § 1 (2) of the Bulgarian Criminal Code).
13.  On an unspecified date the victim joined the proceedings as a civil claimant.
14.  On 10 or 11 August 1999 the applicant appealed against his detention claiming, inter alia, that he had a permanent address and that the worsening financial situation of his family would preclude any possibility that he might abscond. With a resolution of 10 September 1999 the Pazardzhik District Court decreed that the appeal would be examined at the next court hearing.
15.  At a hearing on 4 October 1999 the Pazardzhik District Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. It considered that there were no new circumstances following his previous appeal of July 1998, that he was still charged with a serious intentional offence and, therefore, that there was still a risk that he might abscond, attempt to intimidate the victim and the other witnesses, and obstruct the discovery process in the proceedings. The lack of employment of the applicant was considered a contributory element to the risk that he might abscond. The court did not consider the length of the detention to be a reason onto itself which might justify a reassessment of the justification of the applicant's deprivation of liberty.
16.  On 10 November 1999, on appeal by the applicant of 6 October 1999, the Pazardzhik Regional Court upheld the lower court's decision on similar grounds.
17.  On 6 December 1999 the applicant filed another appeal against his detention.
18.  At the court hearing on the same day, the Pazardzhik District Court dismissed the appeal as it considered that the seriousness of the offence still inferred that he might abscond and re-offend. The court also considered that the length of the applicant's detention could not in itself warrant his release. At the end of the hearing, the court withdrew to deliver its judgment.
19.  In a judgment of 7 December 1999 the Pazardzhik District Court found the applicant and his two accomplices guilty as charged. He was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and ordered to pay damages to the victim.
20.  The applicant appealed against the judgment on 4 January 2000 claiming that the imposed sentence was unjustified and unsupported by the evidence in the case.
21.  The hearings of 16 and 30 May 2000 before the Pazardzhik Regional Court were postponed due to improper summons of the civil claimant.
22.  The applicant's appeal was examined at the next hearing on 27 June 2000.
23.  In a judgment of 27 September 2000 the applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Pazardzhik Regional Court. The applicant did not appeal further and the aforementioned judgment became final on 27 October 2000.
24.  The applicant was held at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service from 3 July to 10 November 1998. He was then transferred to the Pazardzhik Prison where he remained until 11 January 2001 before being moved to the Sofia Prison. It is unclear when he was released.
25.  The applicant claimed, which the Government subsequently challenged, that at this detention facility (1) there had been insufficient fresh air and sunlight in the cells; (2) there had been no exercise or healthy food; (3) hygiene had been lacking; (4) he had been denied access to newspapers, books, radio and television; (5) he could not meet with his representative in private, and (6) he could not maintain an active correspondence. In support of his assertions, the applicant submitted signed declarations from himself and another detainee, Mr D.G.
26.  In his declaration, the applicant claimed that he had been held in isolation for the duration of his detention at this facility in a cell which measured 6‑7 sq. m. There had been two wooden beds covered with worn and torn mattresses, blankets and pillows. There had been fleas, cockroaches and mice.
There had been no windows and the only fresh air entering the cell had come from the corridor through a grate above the door. There had been only artificial light which had been constantly switched on.
The applicant had to satisfy the needs of nature in a bucket inside the cell, the contents of which were removed twice a day. He had access to sanitary facilities twice a day for three to five minutes during which time he had to throw out the bucket and pour himself drinking water in a dirty plastic bottle. The applicant bathed and shaved once a week with cold water.
The food had been insufficient and lacked any meat. The applicant received half a kilogram of bread every day. He had to eat without cutlery from dirty plastic dishes.
No exercise had been provided and he had not been allowed to read newspapers, magazines and books.
27.  Mr D.G., in his declaration, corroborated the applicant's statements.
28.  The applicant claimed, which the Government subsequently challenged, that at this detention facility (1) there had been insufficient fresh air and sunlight in the cells; (2) there had been no exercise or healthy food; (3) hygiene had been lacking; (4) he had been denied access to newspapers, books, radio and television; (5) he could not meet with his representative in private, and (6) he could not maintain an active correspondence. The applicant also submitted signed declarations from himself and another detainee, Mr I.S.
29.  In his declaration, the applicant stated that the conditions in the Pazardzhik Prison had initially been similar to those at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service, but that they had improved in 1999. In addition and contrary to some of his complaints, he stated that he had been allowed to have visitors, that the food had consisted of meat or fish several times a week, that he had the ability to watch television, listen to the radio and read books and newspapers. The applicant also stated that he had access to other pastimes at this detention facility, that the sanitary facilities had been situated in the cell itself and that pest extermination activities had been undertaken on a regular basis.
30.  Mr I.S., in his declaration, corroborated the applicant's statements.